`
AndyH wrote:
I'm sure the bean counters have found reasons not to do it.
Maybe, maybe not. A major reason small SLRs were not
square is precedent. For film, we were stuck with existing
stock, so square would have been 24x24mm which then
got cropped to 18x24mm for most purposes. If switching
to unperf'ed 35mm was feasable, the camera would be a
lot deeper to accommodate a flip mirror for 34x34 format.
Well, now we're NOT stuck with existing film slicers so the
35mm physical dimension means nothing. And we're just
about done with SLRs so we don't hafta make the camera
deeper for a 34x34 format. Deeper bodies would have put
more lenses into the retrofocus realm back in SLR times ...
and that increases cost and size.
While we're not stuck with 35mm film slitters, and the end
of the SLR era means less need for retrofocus lenses, the
cost of R&D would suggest keeping current optical designs
as used for 24x36 non-SLRs. 34x34 uses the same image
circle as 24x36 ... just reshape the rear baffle if needed.
Acoarst, you would no longer "look pro" without a "vertical
grip" ... soooo sorry but square format wouldn't need that !
135 and 126 [and 828] film are 35mm, so in that context
there really was a square format 35mm SLR [27x27mm],
and here it is: